902 replies to this topic

[LRW]

Polytheistic peoples (including the ones in ancient egypt) used different scripts to the christian script that modern people use.

The script being written here (classical latin alphabet/roman alphabet/christian alphabet) is a script that was promoted by romans, its the common latin script used by christians. Many ancient peoples used no such script. Its basic, boring and quite bland.

Translating hieroglyphics into a latin script is ridiculous, if the hieroglyphics were potent runic symbols used for magic, which they almost certainly were.  

The futhark runes were magical symbols, trying to translate them in a latin script is an excerise in futility as is trying to translate the ancient egyptian hieroglyphics into a latin script.

Some of their meanings are not justified when its put into words from a latin script.

The hieroglyphics seen in ancient africa are not justified when put into a latin script, if anything the translations sound ridiculous, ancient scripts are different and contain many esoteric meanings and symbolism that its hard, if not impossible to put into words from vastly different scripts like latin.

On the flip note, trying to translate latin words into ancient egyptian hieroglyphics and futhark runes would not be acceptable, it would sound ridiculous, the true meanings would be lost.

Trying to translate such scripts into latin alphabet is losing the true meanings of the symbols. Latin alphabet is its own script, its vastly different to hieroglyphics and futhark scripts.





Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings that are taken for granted and little understood by the people who use such letters in the script.  

A better understanding would only be achieved by taking lessons from the people who invented, designed and encarved the scripts, they were initiated into the manufacture of them, only they can give the true meanings.

Edited by LRW, 04 January 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Proclus]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Polytheistic peoples (including the ones in ancient egypt) used different scripts to the christian script that modern people use.

Translating hieroglyphics into a latin script is ridiculous, if the hieroglyphics were potent runic symbols used for magic, which they almost certainly were.  

Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings that are taken for granted and little understood by the people who use such letters in the script.  

You can translate ancient Egyptian language as every other language, too.
I don't know what the writing has to do with polytheism.

But tell us more on this, this is interesting, do you have examples?:
"Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings"

[Harte]

I can:

The letter B represents a beaver.  See its profile?

This letter: A, represents a fighter jet. A Stealth Fighter, by the looks of it.

H, of course, means field goal.

And W is yo mama (bird's eye view.)

Harte

[Mangoze]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

One that does not have a relation to any character being described as a lord.

Not everyone will believe in the ramblings of an institution with a history for suppression, their "Jesus Christ" is about as real as micky mouse and his adventures in wonderland.

Christendom has no business sticking its noses into historical research, especially when they have had a notorious reputation for suppressing the religons of others in the past, being branded a heretic by them would warrant execution by them.

Since they have suppressed polytheistic religons, then its no surprise to figure out that they also suppress polytheistic peoples true history. After all, they murdered the tribal leaders of what they called barbaric pagans. That was suppression of the culture.

They also are refusing the public access to their hidden archives.

The Vatican Secret Archives have been estimated to contain 52 miles (84 km) of shelving.

They only grant access to people from their own institutions that were educated by them. . Publication of the indexes, in part or as a whole, is forbidden.

Egyptologists are only their shills.

  

You didn't answer the question "Which date system do you propose?"

You just provided another rant of derision and contradiction.  

Your anti-egyptology and anti-christian beliefs only exist because of Egyptology and Christianity.  Your beliefs are based on Egyptology and Christianity.  If they didn't exist you would have nothing to oppose and no opinion, belief or idea of your own.

You could, however prove me wrong by answering:

• Which date system you propse (or even the one you use)?
  
• What are, to your knowledge, the "true" beliefs of the AE religion?

[questionmark]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Polytheistic peoples (including the ones in ancient egypt) used different scripts to the christian script that modern people use.

The script being written here (classical latin alphabet/roman alphabet/christian alphabet) is a script that was promoted by romans, its the common latin script used by christians. Many ancient peoples used no such script. Its basic, boring and quite bland.

Translating hieroglyphics into a latin script is ridiculous, if the hieroglyphics were potent runic symbols used for magic, which they almost certainly were.  

The futhark runes were magical symbols, trying to translate them in a latin script is an excerise in futility as is trying to translate the ancient egyptian hieroglyphics into a latin script.

Some of their meanings are not justified when its put into words from a latin script.

The hieroglyphics seen in ancient africa are not justified when put into a latin script, if anything the translations sound ridiculous, ancient scripts are different and contain many esoteric meanings and symbolism that its hard, if not impossible to put into words from vastly different scripts like latin.

On the flip note, trying to translate latin words into ancient egyptian hieroglyphics and futhark runes would not be acceptable, it would sound ridiculous, the true meanings would be lost.

Trying to translate such scripts into latin alphabet is losing the true meanings of the symbols. Latin alphabet is its own script, its vastly different to hieroglyphics and futhark scripts.





Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings that are taken for granted and little understood by the people who use such letters in the script.  

A better understanding would only be achieved by taking lessons from the people who invented, designed and encarved the scripts, they were initiated into the manufacture of them, only they can give the true meanings.

Christian Script? you sure you know what you are talking about?

[LRW]

 Proclus, on 04 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

You can translate ancient Egyptian language as every other language, too.

Well, you could try to, but it would be a great injustice to the symbols and what they meant, the translations would be highly inaccurate, offensive and sound like jibberish. The people who encarved the script and knew its meaning would be probably bursting into fits of laughter upon hearing the translations, either that or they would be greatly insulted and take offense.

If such ancient people were still alive and were versed in their own hieroglyphic way of communication, and then went on to learn how to communicate in the latin script and a modern language, you would get more accurate translations, but even thats pushing it, because modern english or modern languages especially the latin script might not have the correct words to accurately describe the real meanings of the hieroglyphics.

Polytheistic peoples did not use the latin script to communicate their message. Look at it in another way, take for instance the latin script, imagine if you had no esoteric or real true understanding and knowledge of the script, then how would you decipher its words and the letters in those words and what the whole of the words mean, by using a different script built on different culture, religon and ways of communicating. The translations would not come out right, because the script used by the polytheistic peoples would not have accomodated the words seen in the modern languages.

Take for instance, the words "popcorn", "television", "chocolate" "bugs bunny" "micky mouse"

How on earth could you translate them in a script that would not accomodate such words, as i said earlier, the ancient peoples scripts were highly symbolic ways of communicating used for incantations, they were symbolic magical charms with hidden esoteric meanings that activate the subconcious mind.

Humans can communicate not only by written language with word, but also can communicate their message with symbolic pictures that have hidden esoteric meanings that stimulate the mind at a subconcious level.

The "English Language" attempts to have a word for everything, but they dont, because some things can not be described with such languages and latin scripts.  

Also i have said numerous times that i don't believe hieroglyphics can be translated to any accuracy, i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.  

 Proclus, on 04 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

But tell us more on this, this is interesting, do you have examples?:
"Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings"

Yes, i can give you an example of one of the hidden esoteric meanings seen in the latin script. That most people don't seem to be familiar with.

Take for instance the letter "S" in latin script, look at it more closer, you will see the depiction of a serpent i.e. a snake. Then ask yourself why is the letter "S" used in the word "sex", "snake" and "serpent" is it a coincidence? no it is not, it was done on purpose, and also remember that english is the lingua fraca of christendom.

They "S" i.e. serpent signifies DNA, the double helix. What happens during sex? people procreate, the double helix DNA is used in creating a new being. Thats why you will see the first letter in the word "sex" being represented by the serpent.   

 Mangoze, on 04 January 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

You didn't answer the question "Which date system do you propose?"

I have already answered the question, i said one that does not have a relation to a calendar based around the anno domini one, a calendar that has no relation to the christendom one describing a fictitious character as a lord.

Christendom has indoctrinated billions of people unfortunately and a new "non christian calendar" for the masses would probably never happen.

[Harte]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Well, you could try to, but it would be a great injustice to the symbols and what they meant, the translations would be highly inaccurate, offensive and sound like jibberish.

I should point out here before you make even a bigger fool of yourself that the Egyptians themselves regularly translated their own language into other scripts.

Ever heard of the Rosetta Stone?

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Take for instance the letter "S" in latin script, look at it more closer, you will see the depiction of a serpent i.e. a snake. Then ask yourself why is the letter "S" used in the word "sex", "snake" and "serpent" is it a coincidence? no it is not, it was done on purpose, and also remember that english is the lingua fraca of christendom.

They "S" i.e. serpent signifies DNA, the double helix. What happens during sex? people procreate, the double helix DNA is used in creating a new being. Thats why you will see the first letter in the word "sex" being represented by the serpent.

Oops.  Too late.

Harte

[LRW]

 Harte, on 04 January 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Ever heard of the Rosetta Stone?

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

 Harte, on 04 January 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Oops.  Too late.

Harte

I'm quite sure you would have never noticed, if i did not enlighten you first.

B for beaver you say?

lol

[kmt_sesh]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Polytheistic peoples (including the ones in ancient egypt) used different scripts to the christian script that modern people use.

The script being written here (classical latin alphabet/roman alphabet/christian alphabet) is a script that was promoted by romans, its the common latin script used by christians. Many ancient peoples used no such script. Its basic, boring and quite bland.

Translating hieroglyphics into a latin script is ridiculous, if the hieroglyphics were potent runic symbols used for magic, which they almost certainly were.  

The futhark runes were magical symbols, trying to translate them in a latin script is an excerise in futility as is trying to translate the ancient egyptian hieroglyphics into a latin script.

Some of their meanings are not justified when its put into words from a latin script.

The hieroglyphics seen in ancient africa are not justified when put into a latin script, if anything the translations sound ridiculous, ancient scripts are different and contain many esoteric meanings and symbolism that its hard, if not impossible to put into words from vastly different scripts like latin.

On the flip note, trying to translate latin words into ancient egyptian hieroglyphics and futhark runes would not be acceptable, it would sound ridiculous, the true meanings would be lost.

Trying to translate such scripts into latin alphabet is losing the true meanings of the symbols. Latin alphabet is its own script, its vastly different to hieroglyphics and futhark scripts.


<<Image Snips>>

Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings that are taken for granted and little understood by the people who use such letters in the script.  

A better understanding would only be achieved by taking lessons from the people who invented, designed and encarved the scripts, they were initiated into the manufacture of them, only they can give the true meanings.

I'm always curious where you get your information from. Why on earth would it matter what "script" was being used? Scripts are merely symbols meant to represent the sounds of a language. It's how writing works. There is no such thing as a "Christian script." Most Christians use English or another Western alphabet when they write, but that has nothing to do with their religion because Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists living in the same regions tend to use the same Latin-derived script. This doesn't even say anything about Arab Christians living in the Middle East and Christians in China or Korea or other countries, who use entirely non-Latin-derived scripts.

Your reasoning is fuzzy sometimes and can be difficult to follow.

Translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs is little different from an American or German or Frenchman using his language to translate Chinese or Japanese or Arabic or Aramaic. Should we discount the Japanese, for that matter? They've done a lot of very good work in Egyptology and publish their papers and books in the Japanese language, so should we regard their work as suspect or should we regard it as okay because they're not writing in a Latin-derived script? Do you see the problems here?

I am not a professional historian but I've been studying and translating hieroglyphic inscriptions for over fifteen years. I've taken a lot of training at my own expense to be able to do so. Others at UM who've done the same can testify to the realities of doing this. No one can deny there are difficulties and uncertainties when translating an inscription. The English language possesses a vocabulary considerably larger than ancient Egyptian possessed, which is why two translators might produce subtly different translations of the same inscription.

There are words in ancient Egyptian for which a direct translation into most modern languages is not possible. These include certain religious terms like the components of the soul, such as kA, bA, and Ax. But that doesn't mean we don't understand their meanings. We do. And we do because the ancient Egyptians described them adequately enough so that people living thousands of years later can make sense of them. But the majority of the ancient vocabulary is not nearly so mysterious, so there is no problem translating standard words like god(s), tree, river, king, priest, people, overseer, land, life, tomb, house, sky, and cow.

You're trying to present a mystery that does not exist. The fact that an amateur historian such as I can work on any given inscription and produce a cohesive, understandable translation is a direct reflection of the many brilliant historians and linguists who figured it out long before I was born. The script in which I write my translation is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the ancients themselves wrote, and we can read it.

What of the other scripts used by the Egyptians, such as hieratic and demotic? What of scripts used by neighboring peoples, such as cuneiform? Are these supposed to be an unknowable mystery, too? I guess the only relevant question for you is, how much education and training have you taken in ancient scripts and what is your linguistic background to make such conclusions?

[kmt_sesh]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

Napoleon had nothing to do with the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nor did anyone in his army. His own scholars and scientists who accompanied his Egyptian campaign didn't even have time to study the monument before the English attacked and claimed it for themselves.

The men in the British museum who studied the Rosetta Stone had very little success with it, aside from proving hieroglyphs could be used to write foreign names. It was Jean Francois Champollion, in France, who succeeded in translating the hieroglyphs, and his successes were due largely to epigraphy work of friends who had been to Egypt and supplied him with copies of inscriptions. Champollion did not use the Rosetta Stone as much as people tend to think, which is borne out by the fact that the first Egyptian word Champollion successfully translated was actually a name—ra-mss (Ramesses)—which doesn't even appear on the Rosetta Stone.

And before you use the usual excuse that Champollion was a Christian and therefore bias, bear in mind that Champollion was not a religious person and was much more concerned with his academic pursuits. In fact, he was frequently at odds with the Roman Catholic Church because of how his research demonstrated that the world certainly was not created in 4004 BCE, a misconception to which the Church was still clinging at the time.

[LRW]

 kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Why on earth would it matter what "script" was being used?

It matters, because scripts can come from different cultures, latin script comes from a different culture to the culture that used the hieroglpyhics. Therefore their cultures are very different.

 kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Scripts are merely symbols meant to represent the sounds of a language. It's how writing works.

NOT ALL!, not everything is as simple as that, you must realise that humans communicate not only by sounds but also by symbols.

The symbols and pictures may contain elements of a esoteric nature that tell a whole message and a story.

Such symbols and pictures can also activate the subconcious mind, people are subconciously drawn to them, even if they might not be able to fully comprehend the meanings, their subconcious mind is attracted to it.

The story and messages that such symbols contain can not merely be brushed aside as only being letters with a simple primitive phonetic sound.

Look at modern culture and how they communicate. A lot of it is used by symbols, because not everyone speaks the same language, symbols send a clear message not by sound, but by visually appealing to the sight of the target who views it, the symbol is then translated in the mind, i.e. they get the message, no sounds or phoenetics used at all.

The signs and symbols below, are not a language that uses sounds to communicate, instead they use pictures to communicate the message as best as its designers can make it. The people initiated into the culture will learn it more quickly, than lets say a wandering caveman who sees them and walks into the middle of the road into traffic.






As you can see, visual symbols don't necessarily have to contain a simple basic phonetic. They simply just try to tell a message.  Sometimes they contain both a simple phonetic and a visual message, of which i'm going to describe below.

Take for instance the letter "S" i was talking about earlier, yes it contains a phoenetic element, but also important esoteric meanings.

Pronounce the letter "S" you will get a type of sound of "hish" sssssss, almost identical to the sound of a snake, the same creature that the letter "S" is representing.  To merely just right it off as a simple phonetic letter is incredibly ignorant. People must look at what the snake represents and why its such an important part of ancient cultures and why it looks similar to double helix DNA. Its not a simple phonetic, oh no, it runs much deeper than that, it contains hidden meanings.

 kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

You're trying to present a mystery that does not exist.

I think the mystery of the great pyramids and the hieroglyphs is far deeper than what you want it to be.

 kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

[/background][/size]

And before you use the usual excuse that Champollion was a Christian and therefore bias, bear in mind that Champollion was not a religious person and was much more concerned with his academic pursuits. In fact, he was frequently at odds with the Roman Catholic Church because of how his research demonstrated that the world certainly was not created in 4004 BCE, a misconception to which the Church was still clinging at the time.

He was from France, that society and its colleges are christendom. Champollion was a jesuit in my opinion, or at least one of their coadjutors.

Also, its interesting that you brought him up, the academia world says this about him.

Champollion published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone hieroglyphs in 1822, showing that the Egyptian writing system was a combination of phonetic and ideographicsigns.

Not that i believe he actually translated anything with accuracy though. However its interesting how the academia world from christendom, has said that his so called translations of the hieroglyphs showed that they contain ideographic signs.

Ideographics = a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept, not merely a simple primitive short phonetic sound.

Since Champollion was not immersed into the culture that knew about the true meanings of those ideographics, then i don't believe he could have translated the concepts behind the graphic symbols with any great deal of accuracy.

Edited by LRW, 04 January 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[questionmark]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

It matters, because scripts can come from different cultures, latin script comes from a different culture to the culture that used the heroglpyhics. Therefore their cultures are very different.

As I said, no idea but a strong opinion.

All letter alphabets have evolved from pictograms and that can be traced perfectly by archeological findings.

[LRW]

A lot of the ancient scripts from the ancient world, were not letter alphabets, To compare them to the latin script is the height of ignorance.

Definition of letter: A character representing one or more of the sounds used in speech: any of the symbols of an alphabet..

Not all symbols in the ancient scripts contained a simple phonetic sound, instead they contained a whole concept.

To deny it is even in conflict with the mainstream academia world who realise that the hieroglyphs are ideographic in nature.  

Edited by LRW, 04 January 2013 - 09:16 PM.

[cladking]

 questionmark, on 04 January 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

As I said, no idea but a strong opinion.

All letter alphabets have evolved from pictograms and that can be traced perfectly by archeological findings.

Well... ...let's not forget that the people who do it for a living say they can only "circumscribe" (one day I'm gonna have a typo right here) the meaning.

[Mangoze]

 LRW, on 04 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

...
I have already answered the question, i said one that does not have a relation to a calendar based around the anno domini one, a calendar that has no relation to the christendom one describing a fictitious character as a lord.

Christendom has indoctrinated billions of people unfortunately and a new "non christian calendar" for the masses would probably never happen.

No, you said what you WOULD NOT use.  You haven't identified which you WOULD use.

I suspect you won't provide an answer, because any answer is necessarily wrong.